On family size

**flyd** · 11-17-2004, 07:39

So, as the number of family members decreases, the rate of family member acquisition increases.

Or, as the number of family members approaches zero, the family member acquisition rate approaches infinity.

Or, another element of difficulty that was present in MTW campaigns (family dying out) has been removed from the RTW campaign...

Yay...

**sapi** · 11-17-2004, 08:06

Or, another element of difficulty that was present in MTW campaigns (family dying out) has been removed from the RTW campaign...

Not entirely - the chance has just been lowered.

A change from MTW is that you can access all family members, not just the current king's children

**Oaty** · 11-17-2004, 14:00

So Hobotus in short you are trying to say size does matter?

**Servius** · 11-17-2004, 16:29

It also means it is not practical to have a Governor in every city and still have Generals available to command your armies. And though I'm not sure of this, I believe that if your City to Heir ratio is high (more cities than heirs) the game actually accelerates the speed at which heirs come of age (by fudging their age). Quite often I have taken a city, and the very next year, what would you know but a male heir has come of age. It seems to happens too often to simply be coincidence.

Honestly, I would prefer using MTW's governor and family mechanics. I liked that the family birth/death rates were independent of empire size, and that I could assign governors to any unit I want. I just don't see how the RTW mechanics are superior to the MTW one.

**Siris** · 11-17-2004, 20:48

I think that the way it is, is fine, but, could be better.

Keep the heirs and the mechanics as they are, except let the Captains, be the Generals, and possible Govorners.

Let the heir's & family members, be the heir's, Generals, or Govorners, that way, your never in the short, and you dont have to deal with the hassel of sending a family member 2,000 miles from your Capital to a city where he is to be the new Govoner; instead, you can just appoint a would be General in MTW, but Captain in here as Governor, but that unit should be the General, as it was in MTW.

This thing of family members only getting to be the Generals or Govorners, is gay! Let us have it like MTW, but have it like I suggested above! Would solve many issues we've come to face.

**NicSO** · 11-17-2004, 22:22

Izt would be also nice that captains have stats and that I can choose who to adopt!!!

**Hobotus** · 11-18-2004, 06:08

Personally I like the current system, in my RTW experience it's worked very well, and I like it a lot more than the MTW system actually.

And yes Oaty, size does matter

**TEP** · 11-18-2004, 10:14

Originally Posted by Servius1234

I believe that if your City to Heir ratio is high (more cities than heirs) the game actually accelerates the speed at which heirs come of age (by fudging their age). Quite often I have taken a city, and the very next year, what would you know but a male heir has come of age. It seems to happens too often to simply be coincidence.

Have you investigated/documented this ie. one year a boy is 13, the next he is 16? Do you have some savegames showing this? If this is true, it should be turned off in a patch - it is clearly cheating.

BTW - I love the family system just the way it is. Why do you want a governor in every city? You can just allow mangement of every city or do as I do, and have one family member travel between several nearby cities. It adds an extra challenge in a not too challenging game.